OP
OP
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
i.e. 'Only convincing if you're a desperate, innumerate cretin'.
Undermining the cause?
- Thread starter benborp
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
benborp said:
Let me see: before the removal - 5 collisions; after the removal - 6 collisions. Before - one fatality; after - 2 serious. And, of course, the fact that neither of the serious collisions caused a fatality was entirely down to the absence of fixed speed cameras.
How, exactly? Please explain, Benborp, with fully referenced examples using proper statistical probability calculations.
Or, to put it another way, The Express and the ABD are, as usual, tallking cobblers.
.
OP
OP
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
Right, I admit to being deliberately ambiguous when I started this thread as I wanted to gather as wide a range of opinions as possible. 'The cause' of abolishing speed cameras is not one with which I'm aligned. When I first came across the article it quite disorientated me in that I couldn't accept its awfulness or believe that anyone could be convinced by its crass use of 'statistics'. That is why I queried whether the article undermined 'the cause'.
In my second post I quoted Cab. I then quoted what I believed to be an inadvertent oxymoron from the article. My intention was to commend Cab on his opinion while underlining the severity of the use of the word cretin. While I was about it I thought I could add that my opinion of those that were responsible for the article and those that agreed with it was harsher still.
I attempted to clarify this in my third post.
If anyone wants details of the extent to which speeding drivers can impact on the lives of others PM me. I can be graphic. I'm not laughing.
In my second post I quoted Cab. I then quoted what I believed to be an inadvertent oxymoron from the article. My intention was to commend Cab on his opinion while underlining the severity of the use of the word cretin. While I was about it I thought I could add that my opinion of those that were responsible for the article and those that agreed with it was harsher still.
I attempted to clarify this in my third post.
If anyone wants details of the extent to which speeding drivers can impact on the lives of others PM me. I can be graphic. I'm not laughing.
StuartG said:
This book gives some insight and is worth a read imo:
http://tinyurl.com/ycynzx3
It is at leastv partly due to a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
An example:
"Smoking is often postulated as an example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence of lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking. For example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will. While chemical addiction may operate in addition to cognitive dissonance for existing smokers, new smokers may exhibit a simpler case of the latter."
The same phenomenon would doubtless exist in the case of car use and its negative side effects.
Further queries:
1. What are the full quarterly figures for KSI over, say the last 5 years
2. Did the fatal accident occur near a GATSO?
3. Did the "Serious" accidents occur where the GATSOs had been?
4. In fact, what correlation is there between the sites of any of the accidents and GATSO locations?
5. If there is any correlation, what evidence is there for causation?
In short, would we find the writer of the article on the "Who is the stupidest journalist in the UK" website?
1. What are the full quarterly figures for KSI over, say the last 5 years
2. Did the fatal accident occur near a GATSO?
3. Did the "Serious" accidents occur where the GATSOs had been?
4. In fact, what correlation is there between the sites of any of the accidents and GATSO locations?
5. If there is any correlation, what evidence is there for causation?
In short, would we find the writer of the article on the "Who is the stupidest journalist in the UK" website?
Warning: longish post
Extract from article in the Swindon Advertiser
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/4824813.Accidents_rise_after_speed_cameras_go/
Extract begins
ACCIDENTS on Swindon’s roads have continued to rise since speed cameras were scrapped but the number of speeders has halved. Swindon Council leaders claim the figures prove they made the right decision by deactivating fixed speed cameras at the end of July. But motoring groups and opposition politicians have warned that it is too early to claim Swindon’s roads are now safer.
According to figures released by Swindon Council there were six injuries on Swindon’s roads between August and October of this year. Two of these were serious injuries, while four were slight. Over the same period in 2008 there were four slight injury accidents and one fatal.
The council also said that over the same three-month period in 2009 1,033 motorists received prosecution notices after being caught by mobile cameras. The figure for 2008 was 2,227. Council leader Rod Bluh said: “These figures vindicate our position that money being spent on speed cameras could be better used in other areas. “We know that we have a problem with the number of accidents on our roads rising and that is why we want to tackle the problem by using that money in the most effective way. Our actions have also led to a change in Conservative national policy on this issue.”
But South Swindon MP Anne Snelgrove said it was ridiculous to champion the figures as proof that Swindon’s roads were now safer. “It just means more people are getting away with it,” she said. “This doesn’t mean Swindon is any safer – it just means, as we feared, the boy racers are now able to race away to their hearts content. I’m very sorry the council sees this as a triumph because I can see very little to boast about in these figures.”
Motoring groups were also cautious about reading too much into the statistics. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said: “The accident rate is improving everywhere. The death toll on the roads is coming down. “I would be very loath to read anything into these figures. Casualty figures can bounce up and down.”
RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: “Just as it would be a foolish politician who decided to install speed cameras merely to raise revenue, it would be a reckless one who concluded that cameras had no part to play in road safety on the basis of what has happened in Swindon.
“The town’s experience seems to offer absolutely no statistical assurance that fixed speed cameras do not contribute to preventing death and injury on the nation's roads.”
Extract ends
Interesting that the AA's and the RAC Foundation's responses are somewhat more measured (aka intelligent) than either the Express reporter's or the ABD spokesman quoted by him
Is it not wonderful that the number of people caught speeding by mobile checks is less than the number caught on the old fixed cameras?
And even more wonderful that Cllr Bluh thinks that this proves that the numbers actually committing speeding offences have fallen because the hated GATSOs no longer exist?
The usual "I have the IQ of a retarded mollusc" set of comments.
Extract from article in the Swindon Advertiser
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/4824813.Accidents_rise_after_speed_cameras_go/
Extract begins
ACCIDENTS on Swindon’s roads have continued to rise since speed cameras were scrapped but the number of speeders has halved. Swindon Council leaders claim the figures prove they made the right decision by deactivating fixed speed cameras at the end of July. But motoring groups and opposition politicians have warned that it is too early to claim Swindon’s roads are now safer.
According to figures released by Swindon Council there were six injuries on Swindon’s roads between August and October of this year. Two of these were serious injuries, while four were slight. Over the same period in 2008 there were four slight injury accidents and one fatal.
The council also said that over the same three-month period in 2009 1,033 motorists received prosecution notices after being caught by mobile cameras. The figure for 2008 was 2,227. Council leader Rod Bluh said: “These figures vindicate our position that money being spent on speed cameras could be better used in other areas. “We know that we have a problem with the number of accidents on our roads rising and that is why we want to tackle the problem by using that money in the most effective way. Our actions have also led to a change in Conservative national policy on this issue.”
But South Swindon MP Anne Snelgrove said it was ridiculous to champion the figures as proof that Swindon’s roads were now safer. “It just means more people are getting away with it,” she said. “This doesn’t mean Swindon is any safer – it just means, as we feared, the boy racers are now able to race away to their hearts content. I’m very sorry the council sees this as a triumph because I can see very little to boast about in these figures.”
Motoring groups were also cautious about reading too much into the statistics. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said: “The accident rate is improving everywhere. The death toll on the roads is coming down. “I would be very loath to read anything into these figures. Casualty figures can bounce up and down.”
RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: “Just as it would be a foolish politician who decided to install speed cameras merely to raise revenue, it would be a reckless one who concluded that cameras had no part to play in road safety on the basis of what has happened in Swindon.
“The town’s experience seems to offer absolutely no statistical assurance that fixed speed cameras do not contribute to preventing death and injury on the nation's roads.”
Extract ends
Interesting that the AA's and the RAC Foundation's responses are somewhat more measured (aka intelligent) than either the Express reporter's or the ABD spokesman quoted by him
Is it not wonderful that the number of people caught speeding by mobile checks is less than the number caught on the old fixed cameras?
And even more wonderful that Cllr Bluh thinks that this proves that the numbers actually committing speeding offences have fallen because the hated GATSOs no longer exist?
The usual "I have the IQ of a retarded mollusc" set of comments.
